System Guide
Back to Search Results

Search Results

Display Options
Display Options
Select Fields
Export Results to CSV Create Report 0
+ Add all results to report

Report Produced: 11/13/2024 03:45 AM

Report Question ID Question Discussion Answer Year
20091003 MP/H Rules/Histology--Peritoneal primary: Can the cell types from the primary site and a metastatic site be combined to code histology? See Discussion. Patient has vaginal mass biopsy diagnosed as 'papillary carcinoma with psammoma bodies.' Two weeks later the patient has laparoscopy with multiple peritoneal biopsies, diagnosed as 'well differentiated serous adenocarcinoma'. Patient stated to have peritoneal primary with mets to vagina and was treated with chemotherapy. Do we code the histology to 8441/31 from the primary site biopsies, or can we use 8460/3, combining the cell types from the primary and metastatic sites? Please see SINQ 20041062 for a similar question before the 2007 MP/H rules.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8441 [serous adenocarcinoma, NOS].

Code the histology from the primary site when available. Do not combine histologies from primary and metastatic sites.

In this primary peritoneal case, the diagnosis from the peritoneal biopsies was serous adenocarcinoma.

 2009
20091009 MP/H Rules/Histology--Kidney: How do you code histology for a renal cell carcinoma when pathologists disagree as to whether or not the tumor is consistent with thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney? See Discussion. Final diagnosis states 'left radical nephrectomy, renal cell carcinoma.' The CAP Histologic Type is listed as: Unclassified, most consistent with primary thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney.' Because of the unusual histology it was sent for a consult to a genitourinary pathology specialist. His response was: 'histologic features not typical for any of the known subtypes of renal cell carcinoma and are not consistent with primary thyroid-like follicular carcinoma of the kidney, a distinct renal tumor that we have recently published in the literature.' The tumor was TTF-1 negative, arguing against metastasis from a thyroid primary. For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8312 [renal cell carcinoma, NOS]. The diagnosis is renal cell carcinoma, but the specific type is in question. 2009
20091084 Primary site--Colon: How do you determine the correct subsite when there is conflicting information in different reports? Are there priority rules for coding subsite for sites other than Head and Neck? See Discussion. The path report for a hemicolectomy says, " Specimen: left colon..." and the microscopic says, "...received in formalin designated left colon..." The Operative procedure report says, "Postoperative diagnosis - splenic flexure tumor." The text of this report says, "Mobilizing the splenic flexure mass was incredibly difficult..." and then goes on to describe exactly how and where it was resected. The discharge summary says adenosquamous carcinoma of the splenic flexure. SINQ20051010 says to use the pathology report first, but this was written before the new MP/H rules.

Use the operative report information to code primary site in this case. It is more accurate.

The operative report is usually a better source of location information compared to the pathology report. The pathologist can only reiterate the location as it was reported to him/her.

The 2007 SEER manual states "Unless otherwise instructed, use all available information to code the site," page 69.

 2009
20091059 CS Tumor Size--Breast: How is this field coded for DCIS that is present in scattered small foci over five of eight slides, and the greatest aggregate dimension measures 0.5 cm? See Discussion. Breast biopsy was prompted by abnormality seen on mammography. Would this be an example of when to code 996 (mammographic/xerographic diagnosis only, no size given; clinically not palpable) applies for the CS Tumor Size field?

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Assign code 005 [0.5 cm] in this case. According to the General Instructions for CS tumor size, it is acceptable to code an aggregate size stated by the pathologist (see instruction 4.i).

 2009
20091117 MP/H Rules/Histology--Breast: How is histology to be coded for a breast primary described as "tubular carcinoma (well differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma)"? See Discussion.

How are terms that are modified by parentheses to be interpreted? Do terms in parentheses modify the stated diagnosis and thus have priority over the stated diagnosis? Or would rule H17 apply and histology would be coded as duct and other carcinoma? For this case, the wording of the diagnosis and use of parentheses seem to indicate that tubular is a type of ductal carcinoma. Tubular is not listed as a specific duct carcinoma in the MP/H rules histology tables for breast.

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, code the histology as tubular carcinoma [8211/3]. This is not a case of tubular AND infiltrating duct. The histology is stated to be tubular. Tubular is not a specific type of duct carcinoma. 2009
20091029 MP/H Rules/Histology--Melanoma: How should histology be coded for a melanoma arising in a compound nevus, NOS or a nevus, NOS?

For cases diagnosed 2007 or later, assign code 8720 [Melanoma, NOS] to melanoma arising in a nevus that does not have a specific code or to melanoma arising in a nevus, NOS.

Currently, ICD-O-3 does not have a specific classification for a melanoma arising in a compound nevus.

 2009
20091045 CS Tumor Size/CS Site Specific Factor--Breast: When tumor size is unknown, but it is known that both in situ and invasive components are present, how should CS Tumor Size and SSF6 be coded? See Discussion. We coded CS Tumor Size 990 and SSF 6 to 060 for a case in which no tumor size was mentioned and the breast core biopsy identified microinvasive infiltrating lobular carcinoma and lobular carcinoma insitu. The lumpectomy identified no residual tumor. SEER edit 218 states we must have CS Tumor Size as 999 if the CS SSF 6 is 060. Yet the tumor size code of 990 (Microinvasion; microscopic focus or foci only, no size given; described as less than 1 mm) would more accurately reflect this case. Even in a situation where there was microinvasion described as less than 1mm, the edit will not allow one to code CS Tumor Size to 990 with the CS SSF 6 as 060. Should these types of cases have CS Tumor Size coded 999 or should the edit be adjusted to allow for this combination?

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2.Code CS tumor size 990 [Microinvasion; microscopic focus or foci only, no size given; described as less than 1 mm] and CS SSF6 050 [Invasive and in situ components present, size of entire tumor coded in CS Tumor Size because size of invasive component not stated AND proportions of in situ and invasive not known].

This combination of codes captures the information available for this case.

 2009
20091125

Ambiguous terminology/Reportability--Thyroid: Should a thyroid case be accessioned based only on a cytology that is consistent with papillary carcinoma? See Discussion.

Instructions in the 2007 SPCSM state that we are not to accession a case based only on a suspicious cytology. Does this rule apply only to the term "suspicious" or does it apply to all ambiguous terms? Example: FNA of thyroid nodule is consistent with papillary carcinoma.

 Do not accession the case if the cytology is the only information in the medical record. The phrase "Do not accession a case based only on suspicious cytology" means that the cytology is the only information in the record. If there is other information that supports the suspicion of cancer (radiology reports, physician statements, surgery), then accession the case. The phrase "suspicious cytology" includes all of the ambiguous terms. 2009
20091078 MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Head & Neck: How many primaries should be reported when an invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the right mandibular body (C06.9) was diagnosed in 2004 (treated with surgery and radical neck dissection), and an invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the left buccal mucosa (C06.0) was diagnosed in 2007? See Discussion. According to the MP/H Rules, it appears Rule M12 would apply since none of the others fit and these would be a single primary.

For cases diagnosed 2007-2014:

Based on the information provided, the primary site code for the 2004 primary should be C031 [mandibular gingiva, lower alveolar mucosa, etc.].

The 2007 diagnosis would be a separate primary according to rule M7 because the patient was disease free following treatment for the 2004 diagnosis. C031 and C060 are different at the third character.

 2009
20091062 CS Site Specific Factor--Head & Neck: How is Site Specific Factor 2 coded when the pathologist describes regional lymph nodes as "matted"? See Discussion. The primary tumor is located in the tonsil. The patient underwent neck dissection. Pathology report stated there were matted regional lymph nodes. Does the term matted describe extracapsular extension? The definition for site specific factor 2 uses the term "fixed" to describe extracapsular extension (but not matted). For breast, fixed/matted appear to be interchangeable. Would they also be interchangeable for head and neck cases?

This answer was provided in the context of CSv1 coding guidelines. The response may not be used after your registry database has been converted to CSv2."Matted" is not a synonym for "Fixed" in the CS schema for Head and Neck. "Matted" is not indicative of extracapsular extension for the Head and Neck schema.

 2009